EDITORIAL

Transform local politics

Democrats would like to crush the Green Party, and many party
regulars will continue to feel that way until it becomes clear that
the upstarts are not going to fall back in line. Then the Democrats
will learn to deal with them.

After the election, congressional Democrats pointedly declared
that they would not work with Ralph Nader and heaped abuse on him for
attacking Al Gore and siphoning votes away from the Democratic
nominee. Senate Democratic leaders prevented Nader from testifying
against the nomination of John Ashcroft for attorney general and Gale
Norton for interior secretary. Some Democrats have talked of
reprisals against groups affiliated with Nader, including Public
Citizen, the public interest group Nader founded, but which now
operates independently from him.

Nader, unrepentant, apparently has made his peace with House
Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt, with whom he talked Feb. 8. "He made
it clear he doesn't look favorable at the backbiting that is going
on, the exclusionary backbiting that some Democrats in the House and
Senate have engaged in against us,'' Nader told Reuters. He
continued, "... Gephardt is a sensible person who keeps his eye on
policy objectives.''

It might take time for word of a truce to filter down the ranks.
In the meantime Greens and Progressive Democrats should work together
at the local level on two issues that would advance progressive
politics: instant runoff voting and public funding of elections.

Instant runoff voting allows voters to rank candidates according
to their order of preference. If none of the candidates finishes with
a first-round majority of all the votes cast, the last candidate is
dropped and votes are re-tallied, with the second choices of the
losing candidate's voters added to the remaining candidates' totals.
The choices can easily be tallied by automatic scanners and
computers.

If instant runoff voting had been used in the recent presidential
election in Florida, and assuming a majority of Nader voters had Gore
as their second choice, Gore would have won Florida by a clear
majority rather than the apparent plurality which ended up being
overruled by the US Supreme Court's "short count." On the other hand,
if instant runoff voting had been used in 1992, and if most of Ross
Perot's supporters had listed George Bush I as their second choice,
Bill Clinton might never have been elected president. So both
Democrats and Republicans have reasons to work for instant
runoffs.

It's no accident that most of the work on IRV is being done in
states and localities with a history of third and fourth parties
splintering the vote from the two major parties. In Alaska, a
petition drive turned up more than enough signatures to put an
initiative on the ballot in 2002 to require instant runoffs for most
state offices. Republicans remember 1990, when the Alaskan
Independence Party drew enough conservative voters to allow the
election of Democrat Tony Knowles. Unfortunately, the state
constitution provides that the governor and lieutenant governor are
elected by a plurality of votes, and the constitution is beyond the
reach of the initiative process, but the legislature could put a
constitutional amendment up for a vote, particularly now that the
Green Party threatens to draw votes from the left.

Vermont is another state with a pesky third party -- the
Progressives, who nearly drew enough votes this past November to
throw the governor's election to the state House of Representatives.
The state House in 1998 created the Vermont Commission to Study
Preference Voting, which recommended that IRV be instituted for all
statewide elections.

Democrats are pursuing a constitutional amendment allowing IRV in
New Mexico, where Greens and Democrats have split the "liberal" vote
in recent years, giving Republicans plurality wins in several races.
The New Mexico State Senate approved a constitutional amendment in
1998, but the proposition failed to clear the House.

In California, Oakland voters in November overwhelmingly approved
a city charter amendment to use instant runoff voting in special
elections to fill vacancies on the city council. In nearby San
Leandro, voters adopted a city charter amendment to allow instant
runoff voting. Santa Clara County voters also approved a charter
amendment authorizing the use of IRV.

Instant runoff voting was invented in Massachusetts in 1870 but
was first used in 1893 in Australia, where it is still used in
federal elections and is known as "alternative voting." Ireland's
president is elected by IRV. In Britain, the mayor of London is
elected by IRV and it is being considered, along with proportional
representation, for the House of Commons.

David Cobb, a Houston lawyer, Texas state coordinator for Nader
and also an activist for the Center for Voting and Democracy, which
promotes instant runoff voting (see www.fairvote.org or phone
301-270-4616), was in Austin recently to talk up instant runoff
voting. He called it "one of the most important electoral reforms we
could do to increase democracy."

Austin is seen as ripe for instant runoffs because it is poised to
make major changes in voting for its city council, whose mayor and
six council members are now selected at large. A task force has
recommended single-member districts, and also recommended that they
be elected by instant runoff voting.

Benefits of IRV include the premium it places on discussion of
policy issues instead of mudslinging, Cobb noted, since candidates
won't want to alienate the supporters of rival candidates, hoping to
be their second choice.

Instant runoff voting also guarantees that winners have a majority
base of support. It reduces the extra costs of campaigning for a
runoff as well as saving taxpayers the cost of running a second
election. And it eliminates the threat of also-ran candidates
"spoiling" the election.

As it stands, Cobb said, all the Green Party can hope to do is
spoil the election of a Democrat, and few, if any, Greens are
satisfied with that role.

He adds that in his efforts to get Democratic legislators to
consider IRV, he warns them not to think he'll fall back in line if
the Greens fail to achieve IRV. "I tell them 'I'm an unrepentant
Green Party voter. I'm not a Democratic Party voter gone astray. I
believe in different things than you do.'"

Libertarians have indicated support of IRV. Cobb hopes a resurgent
Reform Party will support IRV as well. "We need the Reform Party to
put a scare in the Republicans."

Passage of the McCain-Feingold bill, if it puts controls on "soft
money" contributions to political parties and attack ads run by
independent political action committees, would be a good first step
towards reforming campaign finance. But "poison pill" provisions that
might be attached to the bill, such as proposals to increase the
current limits on hard money contributions and anti-union "paycheck
protection" measures, would damage the cause of reform.

Public funding is the real solution to the high cost of running
campaigns that keeps politicians reliant on corporate contributors.
But that won't happen in Congress in the foreseeable future. Instead,
the action is at the state and local level.

Four states -- Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont --
already have adopted versions of Clean Money Campaign Reform, which
provides public campaign funds to qualifying candidates who agree to
limit their fundraising and spending. (See www.publicampaign.org or
call 1-877-687-8542.)

Austin Greens and others are promoting a "Clean Money" initiative
to provide public matching funds for city council candidates who
agree to limit their fundraising and spending. Candidates who collect
signatures and $5 contributions from 500 voters for council seats or
1000 voters for the mayoral race would qualify for matching grants of
$2 for every dollar they raise privately, up to a total of $100,000
for council races and $200,000 for mayoral races. Private
contributions would be limited to $200 and must come from Austin
residents. (See www.cleancampaigns.org or call 512-440-5757.)

Instant runoffs and public funding of elections could help bring
democracy back to America. -- JMC